Chevy Volt drivers average 800 miles between fill-ups.

With hundred milions of users charging their EV-s, it wont be realy that much emision free. They just move the emisions to the power plants (majority are still coal plants). Just my reaction to the stupid green advertisements that come with these cars.
This is a very common response/fallacy.

Power plants, even the dirtiest of coal fired ones, are far more efficient and "greener" than tens of thousands of petrol-burning internal combustion engines, especially if waste heat is recovered from the plant's heat exchangers and used to warm up buildings during wintertime and hot water supply.
 
There are three different things brought up:


1. Efficiency of mobile power plants versus huge, stationary ones.

Well, for starters, those power plants don't pay large fuel taxes. But disregarding that, size is everything in efficiency.

And you would want that electricity to recharge your car at night, when some of those plants are simply throwing away generated electricity, because that's cheaper than turning them off and back on, and prevents brownouts.


2. The difference between an ICE used for driving the wheels or a generator.

You want to prevent any direct, mechanical connection between the wheels and that ICE, if you care about efficiency. Use it to drive a generator, and it becomes so much more efficient, that the losses incurred by charging the batteries and using those to drive (a DC/AC converter and) an electric motor still makes it more efficient overall.


3. The differences between different types of electric motors to power the wheels, or to generate electricity.

Well, for starters, an electric motor only uses electricity when delivering torque, in a very linear fashion. While an ICE burns power all the time, even when idling. And even during acceleration the electric engine is better, simply because it has a higher efficiency (about 300%) to start with.

Which makes sense if you think about it: the combustion is a messy, chemical process, that reacts to all the forces working on it, and has a strict, optimal combustion speed for each of those combinations incurred by driving the wheels directly.

Good luck making that somewhat efficient if you cannot control those forces!

As to why some electric motors make better or worse generators (or motors!):


An AC induction motor (the simplest, cheapest and most common one):
Induction-motor-3a.gif

Cheap, simple, light, reliable, good torque; what is not to like? It's your basic, cheap workhorse. Not as efficient as brushless or synchronous motors, but still pretty good and much cheaper.

But, as you can see in the animation, there are no magnets or coils on the rotor. So, if you crank it around by braking, not much happens. Because it only works when the coils are inducting a current into the rotor. And for a generator, you want the reverse: you want the rotor to power those coils, not the other way around.


A DC motor:
200px-Electric_motor.gif

As there are electromagnets on the outside, it does generate electricity readily.

But the whole design isn't all that efficient for either generating torque or electricity to begin with. The brushes create friction and have overlap, and there's only a few angles where maximum magnetic repulsion is created. Much of the time, it's either powered wrong or pushing in a less than optimal vector.

Strangely enough, they're actually better in generating electricity than converting it to torque, if you want speed control. Because that requires either voltage control (max. efficiency of around 80%), or PWM, which reduces the maximum torque significantly.

Their main benefit is that they're very simple and very cheap. But they're not used if you want efficiency and high torque from low rpm. Like, in a commercial-grade car.


A brushless motor:
Motor.jpg

Well, they're like an AC motor that you can operate by PWM: no DC/AC conversion needed. And, as they do use permanent magnets, they do produce electricity.

Interestingly enough, they're generally short and wide, while the housing rotates. And because they can deliver very high torque at any rpm, that makes them excellent hub- and brake replacements. They're potentially the best at both driving and generating, when you power them from batteries.

But all the magic is in the electronics and timing. Losses are unavoidable, and the electronics are outright bulky and expensive, compared to the other types. Especially when you want to use them as generators as well.

And the electronics are far more expensive than the motors.


That leaves AC synchronous motors:
Motor.gif

If you want efficient, look no further. This is the industry standard, and has been for about a century by now. But they are designed for a single voltage and frequency, which is a problem. Unless you use DC/AC converters and can generate the voltage and frequency you need. But that does incur conversion losses.

In the animation, the rotor uses permanent magnets, which work fine for generating electricity. But the best ones use coils on both the rotor and strator.

Simply because you cannot regulate permanent magnets. They function best at the design spec, and worse at every other speed and power usage.

So, that's why you would want a combination of the brushless and synchronous motor, for the best results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Frank, excellent post. I didn't know there was torque loss when using PWM though I know there are heat problems.
 
With hundred milions of users charging their EV-s, it wont be realy that much emision free. They just move the emisions to the power plants (majority are still coal plants). Just my reaction to the stupid green advertisements that come with these cars.

The advantage is that in large cities it could help to eliminate smog and of course building a new powerplant is easyer than to negotiate and beg for oil.

here in new jersey pse&g is rolling out a massive amount of solar panels on telephone polls . So perhaps in the future it wont be at the power plants , or at least not alone
 
Frank remember hub motors are unsprung weight and have significant performance drawbacks. They get rid of gearing losses, but the tradeoff isn't that great. Instead using the motor inboard of the wheel so it is somewhat isolated from road vibration will probably be the way to do unless they can get the motor very robust and very light while still being inexpensive (since in a hub motor you need 2 motors or more).
 
(since in a hub motor you need 2 motors or more).
FWIW the Lotus hybrid concept car used two (inboard) motors which were then driven independently to improve cornering, something which requires a fancy differential in an traditional car. I just wish they'd make it (and then I had the money to buy it)
 
All modern EVs with individual motors will use torque vectoring since it would basically be free and removes the heavy and parasitic loss of a differential, drive shaft etc.

As for unsprung weight that won't really be an issue if you use smaller motors.
 
I personally am enamored with a design like the lotus where you have 2 or 4 inboard motors (for fwd/rwd or awd). I am enamored with it b/c I like performance vehicles. The michelin design or similar things have some promise but it is hard to divorce oneself from personal bias. I drive on a significant number of rough roads and look at that design and cringe. It is pretty cook though the ability to change ride height, and so forth is nifty.

I would like to know the weight of the wheels in a voulage though. It is a performance vehicle, but if the reported 35kg of unsprung weight changes significantly it would be important. Also I wasn't clear on whether the unspung weight was w/ or w/o tires. My vehicle wheels weigh 16.5# or 7.5kg. So this setup would double the unsprung weight before a tire is put on. Of course it seems they might be saving weight in the braking system so the overall comparison isn't that bad.

BTW edmunds says the active wheel weighs 95 pounds.
 
Frank remember hub motors are unsprung weight and have significant performance drawbacks. They get rid of gearing losses, but the tradeoff isn't that great. Instead using the motor inboard of the wheel so it is somewhat isolated from road vibration will probably be the way to do unless they can get the motor very robust and very light while still being inexpensive (since in a hub motor you need 2 motors or more).
True, but the housing replaces the hub, and the brakes and axle have weight as well. So, it's not as bad as you might think.

Road vibration isn't an issue, as there are no parts inside that make contact with one another.

Like this mini:
mini_hybrid.jpg


EDIT: the motors used weigh 31 kilogram each(!), so that's definitely too much.

Then again, they add a motor to the inside of the hub instead of replacing it, and they put all the electronics inside as well, which is stupid.

I have seen much better ones, but I'll have to Google for them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This:
5996_13080683100.jpg

is the idea. Much better and lighter than the ones used on the mini.

But I haven't found the ones I was looking for, yet.
 
Road vibration isn't an issue, as there are no parts inside that make contact with one another.

The heads on a HDD don't touch the platter but that doesn't suddenly mean vibration doesn't matter. When you have no parts making contact with each other and slam things around something things go poorly.

BTW mariner already posted something quite similar if not the same.
 
My motive for wanting to purchase an EV is gasoline prices not emisions.

Ok, so ignoring the environmental cost of building a new hybrid car, how many years would it take to recooperate the cost of a new car?

Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt we need to replace gasoline, but I'm not convinced the rush toward electric vehicles and hybrids has been entirely thought out.
 
John, how much does it cost you for gas? How much for electricity? How far do you drive a day? What is your discount rate?

If you can't answer those questions no one can answer yours.
 
John, how much does it cost you for gas? How much for electricity? How far do you drive a day? What is your discount rate?

If you can't answer those questions no one can answer yours.

I spend about £1500 a year on fuel, average mileage (~10K a year) in a moderately high performance car at fuel prices that are currently ~3x those in the US. If I was drive an electric vehcle that cost £15000 and runs on FREE electricity it would still take me 10 years to cover the cost of the new vehcle.

No doubt you will argue that people in the US tend to do much higher mileage, but I'd suggest that that in itself is an issue that the US needs to address i.e. fix the car based culture.

*Rant mode on*
And, again, all this ignores the huge environmental costs associated with producing and then disposing of all these batteries that are suddenly being used to power cars. But hey all that polution and environmental damage will probably be happening in another (likely 3rd world) country so what's to worry about hey, the American dream of excess can continue to live on. Sigh.
*Rant mode off*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I spend about £1500 a year on fuel, average mileage (~10K a year) in a moderately high performance car at fuel prices that are currently ~3x those in the US. If I was drive an electric vehcle that cost £15000 and runs on FREE electricity it would still take me 10 years to cover the cost of the new vehcle.

No doubt you will argue that people in the US tend to do much higher mileage, but I'd suggest that that in itself is an issue that the US needs to address i.e. fix the car based culture.

Your current car also cost money and would have to be replaced at some point anyway, also you wouldn't lose the entire value of the new electic car, you would get some of it back later on.
 
Ok, so ignoring the environmental cost of building a new hybrid car, how many years would it take to recooperate the cost of a new car?

Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt we need to replace gasoline, but I'm not convinced the rush toward electric vehicles and hybrids has been entirely thought out.

If I buy a $30K EV I would immediately benefit from fuel costs because electricity is cheaper.

If I buy a $30k petrol car I would still have to pay over $4 per gallon.

Of course I could buy a much cheaper $15K petrol car and use the left over $15K for gas + maintenance but that's another debate.;)
 
An additional possible advantage in the long run to switching to electric vehicles is that we'd stop spreading small amounts platinum and rhodium on the roads as each car's catalytic converter degrades.

An EV's components are mostly contained, but no reasonable scheme exists for extracting catalyst dust spread over millions of miles of road.
 
If I buy a $30K EV I would immediately benefit from fuel costs because electricity is cheaper.

If I buy a $30k petrol car I would still have to pay over $4 per gallon.

Of course I could buy a much cheaper $15K petrol car and use the left over $15K for gas + maintenance but that's another debate.;)

If you buy an EV before you were originally planning to get rid of the petrol car, you've made an outlay you wouldn't necessarily have made otherwise.

Also, is it possible to get the same model / quality of car for the same price for both petrol / electric versions? Everything I've read suggests that you end up paying more for a car just because it is electric - you end up paying $30k for an electric version of a $15k car, in which case if you spend $1.5k a year on fuel, the car has to last for 10 years to make your money back before you account for electricity costs. And the debate wouldn't be about buying a "cheaper" petrol car, it is about buying electric or petrol versions of the same car.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top